Gun and Powder at Paper Mill- Page 6

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 2:40pm

I feel like Ciara Renee’s career has been one failure to launch after another. Cast in BIG FISH straight out of college — turns out to be a quick flop. Cast in HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME — goes nowhere. Two shows in which she had prominent replacement roles (FROZEN and WAITRESS) closed prematurely due to COVID. THE WRONG MAN didn’t move to Broadway. She probably thought WANTED/GUN AND POWDER was her big chance to originate a leading role on Broadway, and is using the court to litigate her hurt feelings. 

[African Queen2]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 4:48pm

I didn’t like her at all in Pippin.  Wasn’t Nicole Scherzinger supposed to replace Patina in that?

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 4:58pm

“She probably thought WANTED/GUN AND POWDER was her big chance to originate a leading role on Broadway, and is using the court to litigate her hurt feelings.”

Based on the filing, I’d say she was led to rightly believe that it was her chance or originate a leading role. And if an agreement was in place, she should be pursuing what was rightfully hers.

I do wonder if she should have waited until the show actually opened to start this claim, as they could now really cancel the entire production and say they don’t owe her a dime if no production happens. The whole show will probably go the way of Paradise Square, anyway. 

NB, this is “racist Boris!”, firmly on the side of a black person. 

Updated On: 8/25/25 at 04:58 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 5:00pm

BorisTomashevsky said: "
NB, this is “racist Boris!”, firmly on the side of a black person."

Give it a ****in’ rest. 

Updated On: 8/25/25 at 05:00 PM

[Zingingtobway]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 6:15pm

I have no stake in the game here. I am a theater lover and saw the show at Papermill and Loved It. BUT, This seems to be a re-occurring issue within the world of Broadway. Actors/Actresses are promised things in the developmental stages. They do all the work, All the backer auditions, Regional premieres, industry readings, give insight during the table reads and re-writes. They perform at huge donor events, Record demos and are advertised as the upcoming Broadway company and then BAM! They are removed from the project. Several of the ensemble members were let go from the project before the last workshop. They too were strung along..

I am annoyed that the union that is supposed to protect their actors in some regards have failed them in securing that these issues don't happen across the board. We will never know what  conversations went on between the producers and Ciara. She maybe she is Delulu or this may in fact be her truth.  However, If her claims are true and she has documented proof, Contracts, Letters of agreements, Heck Text messages. She may have a legal claim. For too long Producers get away with murder doing this time and time again. Even if she doesn't get a dime she is blowing the whistle on the Dog eat Cat machine we call showbiz

 

There are even rumors that the promo reel they are using to get word of mouth out showcasing one of their dynamic performers may be replaced by a star name when it comes to Broadway next year. However, they are using said promo reel  of that performer's talent. likeness and artistry everywhere to gain the public and investors favor.  It's wrong! For far too long actresses like Ciara has fallen victim to this sort of business tactics. Most Actors are afraid to speak out for fear of being Blacklisted. The few that did speak out were canceled and we never heard of them again.

I wish her the best of luck. Her ask for financial is a huge ask but we don't know what she turned down waiting for the green light on this gig to only be sidelined.  I hope it gets better for all actors before it get's worse  

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 6:19pm

African Queen2 said: "I didn’t like her at all in Pippin. Wasn’t Nicole Scherzinger supposed to replace Patina in that?"

Yes she didn’t want to do matinees and was asking for $$$

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/25/25 at 8:59pm

Is it common for a contract to do a regional production to include a clause that essentially guarantees right of first refusal for a subsequent (and hypothetical at this stage) Broadway run? 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/26/25 at 12:17am

AC126748 said: "Is it common for a contract to do a regional production to include a clause that essentially guarantees right of first refusal for a subsequent (and hypothetical at this stage) Broadway run?"

As I believe I wrote above (but you can be forgiven for missing it among the sludge of misinformation people who have no idea what they are talking about have also posted here), the Paper Mill contract (the AEA COST agreement) technically provides a right of first refusal but the only thing it actually guarantees is four weeks of pay at the Broadway minimum (approximately $10,500 in total). The producer is free to part company with the actor for that sum. 

The complaint in this case makes no mention of this or any other contract. 

[someoneinatree2]

Posted: 8/26/25 at 12:37am

AC126748 said: "Is it common for a contract to do a regional production to include a clause that essentially guarantees right of first refusal for a subsequent (and hypothetical at this stage) Broadway run?"

I believe so. My experience is: actors in new work see the road to Broadway quite early, and producers talk about the 'eventual Broadway production' on day one of the 20-hour reading. Broadway is Finish Line. A regional theatre, especially one with a history of transfers, would absolutely have Broadway on the table. 

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 8/26/25 at 2:51am

Ill have to read the complaint more closely, but lotta misinterpretation in this thread.

first of all, OF COURSE shes going to ask for a trillion dollars. Most complaints will just say "an amount to be determined at trial" but you never undersell yourself. Her lawyers arent seriously expecting those figures. 

second, doesnt the complaint reference a letter agreement of some sort? Lotta emphasis here on "the contract" but if shes got emails, or an offer letter, or other evidence of offer/acceptance, she dosent need a signed contract to recover. the complaint is not limited to breach of contract causes of action alone.

finally, yeah, this seems like career suicide since fundamentally, unless theres clear binding language saying otherwise, we have at-will employment which allows you to quit whenever you want and allows them to fire you whenever they want, without cause or basis. she may be entitled to some weeks of unpaid work, but i find it hard to imagine a court would compel theater producers (or any other employers) to stick with a hire for the duration of a project. unless thers a demonstrable promise made somewhere, the producers should be able to say "we paid her every penny for the work she did, but we like Solea more, thems the breaks." 

 

[singer234]

Posted: 8/26/25 at 8:46am

I think things could also be complicated by the fact that there were two "out of town" try-outs for this show. So we also don't know what was in Solea's contract back at Signature, and if there was anything about moving forward with the show, where that stands now due to the length of time that's passed. A good case study for "right of first refusal" going forward-you have to really define who actually came first. Again, I don't know any of the contractual details, but just something I'm thinking about that further muddies the waters.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 8/26/25 at 10:18pm

if the producers put ROFRs in writing to two actresses re the same show, Ciara has a real good case here, but I cant fathom any group of businesspeople could be that irresponsible. it seems they soured on her, for whatever reason, and thats perfectly legal unless a document says otherwise.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 10:54am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "if the producers put ROFRs in writing to two actresses re the same show, Ciara has a real good case here, but I cant fathom any group of businesspeople could be that irresponsible. it seems they soured on her, for whatever reason, and thats perfectly legal unless a document says otherwise."

The ROFR is in both the COST contract at Paper Mill, and the LORT contract at Signature. Here and in your earlier post you are giving some advice that does not recognize that these are Equity agreements, and thus it is not possible to have a contract that does not have an ROFR provision. The only issue here that I do not know the answer to is whether the earlier production was also affiliated with the same producing team(s). FWIW the lawyer filing the complaint seems oblivious to the impact of the collectively bargained contract(s).

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 11:02am

I know there was something written about the producing company changing names. Could that have been done to try and give themselves a loophole or immunity to Ciara’s contract, and make it easier to not proceed with her as well as avoid being sued?

[JSquared2]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 11:17am

BorisTomashevsky said: "I know there was something written about the producing company changing names. Could that have been done to try and give themselves a loophole or immunity to Ciara’s contract, and make it easier to not proceed with her as well as avoid being sued?"

 

No.

 

[Bwaygurl2]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 11:18am

JSquared2 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "I know there was something written about the producing company changing names. Could that have been done to try and give themselves a loophole or immunity to Ciara’s contract, and make it easier to not proceed with her as well as avoid being sued?"



No.

"

Lol. 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 11:44am

Bwaygurl2 said: "JSquared2 said: "BorisTomashevsky said: "I know there was something written about the producing company changing names. Could that have been done to try and give themselves a loophole or immunity to Ciara’s contract, and make it easier to not proceed with her as well as avoid being sued?"



No.

"

Lol."


You always add so much. Keep it up! 

[Kad]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 11:46am

HogansHero said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "if the producers put ROFRs in writing to two actresses re the same show, Ciara has a real good case here, but I cant fathom any group of businesspeople could be that irresponsible. it seems they soured on her, for whatever reason, and thats perfectly legal unless a document says otherwise."

The ROFR is in both the COST contract at Paper Mill, and the LORT contract at Signature. Here and in your earlier post you are giving someadvice that does not recognize that these are Equity agreements, and thus it is not possible to have a contract that does not have an ROFR provision. The only issue here that I do not know the answer to is whether the earlier production was also affiliated with the same producing team(s). FWIW the lawyer filing the complaint seems oblivious to the impact of the collectively bargained contract(s)."

Yes, that’s what I was going to point out, too- first refusal language is part of nearly all the most used AEA contracts.
The complaint is incredibly scant on details on the agreement it is ostensibly claiming has been breached- it doesn’t mention AEA contract terms or types and I don’t believe it even gives a date when both parties entered into agreement. A lot of space is given to positive reviews and subsequent things Renee was asked and agreed to do, but there’s a lack of pointing to a specific clause that was clearly broken. 

Considering a show will be using multiple agreements over the course of development- workshops, labs, readings, regional or off broadway productions all use different contracts- I wouldn’t be surprised if a star performer would have a separate agreement for protection and continuity that goes beyond AEA’s language- this is an area in which Equity contracts set floors, not ceilings, and performers can negotiate more favorable terms for themselves. But I’d be surprised that Ciara Renee would be able to successfully demand such terms (and that $13.4k weekly salary she is claiming she would have on Broadway seems… very high) that would essentially make letting her go prohibitively onerous. 

Updated On: 8/27/25 at 11:46 AM

[EntrActe]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 1:09pm

For those of you with access to and quoting the Equity agreements. 

• Where are you finding the COST First Right of Refusal language?
"16. Cross-Contractual Productions and Jobbing Tours" & Addendum 2 seems like a stretch for a Production that transfers to Broadway years later. It also leaves it up to the discretion of Equity so I'd imagine that if one performer was able to use this, everyone in the production would as well. But that it would be Equity's fight. If she went to Equity and didn't agree with the outcome of their decision or conversations with the producers, maybe she'd have right to go around it? But wouldn't the suit mention that?

• The LORT agreement (which is public) doesn't seem to have any First Right of Refusal language. (It discusses transfers to other LORT agreements, but that seems like it.) Did anyone find anything else? If so, can you point me to it?

• The Production Contract has "71. Transfer to Production Contract" which does discuss transfers from LORTs (but that is limited to 3 years, so the First Right of Refusals for the Signature production would have expired). COST contracts would fall under "71. F. Other Contracts Covered by Transfer Requirements." It would give the Paper Mill company a two-year First Right of Refusal, but also limit damages to two weeks of either the original agreement or the Production agreement, whichever is greater? Does that seem like a fair read? 

• If she had additional rights from a rider, why wouldn't her lawyer have listed that text or included the rider? Or made stronger reference to it? In the complaint (which has already been posted here), references to where she acquired the right to future negotiations are vague at best. 

• How are there damages already? The show doesn't have a theater, it's not selling tickets, it's not rehearsing: someone may have been promised "her" role, but they're not being paid to perform or rehearse it - so neither would she. Nor is there any guarantee that the show would even run six months on Broadway. So, why launch the suit now? I know all we can do is surmise, but did she think if she sued them they'd hire her instead? Is she just trying to bring the show negative press while it's trying to compete for a theater/raise the money? Damages seem unlikely at best.

• Lastly, the backbone of development has always been multiple LLCs: a development company raises the money for development investment like readings, workshops, enhancements, and non-commercial try-outs and gets rolled into the commercial company when producers want to capitalize an income-generating (larger raise) production. It would seem (and I'm genuinely asking people smarter than I), that if that roll-up erased the agreements of the first, it would largely make the development LLCs moot: you'd be contracting with people to keep on the commercial production, but fighting to dismiss the contracts you don't want? Also, it would make nearly every first right of refusal earned for development completely meaningless. That can't be the case, right? Maybe this is what she's challenging? (The suit is written so poorly that it seems hard to even tell.) 

Is it really that easy to assign assets from one LLC to another, while just disposing of liabilities? In terms of physical assets: If you've financed an asset (so have debt against something), can you really sell that asset to another LLC for, say, $1 and just dispel the debt you have on that asset? Do LLCs really shield that much liability. Can they? Do you know?

Updated On: 8/27/25 at 01:09 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 8/27/25 at 10:50pm

Kad said: "HogansHero said: "PipingHotPiccolo said: "if the producers put ROFRs in writing to two actresses re the same show, Ciara has a real good case here, but I cant fathom any group of businesspeople could be that irresponsible. it seems they soured on her, for whatever reason, and thats perfectly legal unless a document says otherwise."

The ROFR is in both the COST contract at Paper Mill, and the LORT contract at Signature. Here and in your earlier post you are giving someadvice that does not recognize that these are Equity agreements, and thus it is not possible to have a contract that does not have an ROFR provision. The only issue here that I do not know the answer to is whether the earlier production was also affiliated with the same producing team(s). FWIW the lawyer filing the complaint seems oblivious to the impact of the collectively bargained contract(s)."

Yes, that’s what I was going to point out, too- first refusal language is part of nearly all the most used AEA contracts.
The complaint is incredibly scant on details on the agreement it is ostensibly claiming has been breached- it doesn’t mention AEA contract terms or types andI don’t believe it even gives a date when both parties entered into agreement. A lot of space is given to positive reviews and subsequent things Renee was asked and agreed to do, but there’s a lack of pointing to a specific clause that was clearly broken.

Considering a showwill be using multiple agreements over the course of development- workshops, labs, readings, regional or off broadway productions all use different contracts- I wouldn’t be surprised if a star performer would have a separate agreement for protection and continuity that goes beyond AEA’s language- this is an area in which Equity contracts set floors, not ceilings, and performers can negotiate more favorable terms for themselves. But I’d be surprised that Ciara Renee would be able to successfully demandsuch terms (and that $13.4k weekly salary she is claiming she would have on Broadway seems… very high) that would essentially make letting her go prohibitively onerous."

Ill be the first to admit i know nothing about industry contracts/customs, but I have litigated quite a few ROFRs and surely if the producers promised two actresses such rights--which are inherently exclusive--we can agree they are in a legal contractual pickle? 

[Ensemble1698878795]

Posted: 8/28/25 at 1:29am

They shot themselves in the foot here by using her for press post Papermill, then alleging she was un collaborative during Papermill. They’ve contradicted themselves on their justification of her firing. This isn’t just contractual, it’s messy business proceedings to dispose of her when her talent services were no longer needed to fundraise for their show. Bad look on the producers. 

[Kad]

Posted: 8/28/25 at 10:32am

PipingHotPiccolo said: "

Ill be the first to admit i know nothing about industry contracts/customs, but I have litigated quite a few ROFRs and surely if the producers promised two actresses such rights--which are inherently exclusive--we can agree they are in a legal contractual pickle?"

Well, for Equity contracts, the first refusal is an either/or - either the contracted Equity member is given right of first refusal, or the producers pay them a specified amount to not move forward. There is a legal limit to how much say unions can have in an employer's hiring choices. 

But, again, the language of this complaint strongly suggests that Renee and the producers entered into a separate agreement about her involvement in the show. In the section detailing the varied work Renee did post-Papermill- demo recordings, appearances, etc- it says that her agreement to do this work means she is not in breach of whatever agreement was made between her and the producers in fall of 2023. But since all of that work was done after the run at Papermill, it could not have been part of the Equity contract she performed on there. Actors Equity is also never even cited once in the complaint, nor any of their contract types.

 Being hired for demos or press appearances shouldn't be understood to be assurances that a performer will move forward with the show or even that the producers liked working with the performer- performers are hired to do that stuff all the time as a one-off. Those things have to be thrown together quickly and usually inexpensively and it's just easier to stick with the person who's been doing the material, and since Renee was the star of the major production it makes sense that the producers would put her out front for the time being. Is it stringing her along and is it ****ty? Yeah. But there's a difference between ****ty behavior and breaking a contract and without seeing whatever agreement is the basis for the complaint, there's no way to know.

But if the producers really did essentially box themselves in by agreeing to a contract that would give Ciara Renee so much leverage in a transfer, then they deserve to be raked over the coals.  

 

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 10:32 AM

[stageleftreport]

Posted: 8/28/25 at 12:11pm

For anyone who wants more info on what’s in the court documents + allegedly what was in the contract and what was said between the two parties, i made an explainer vid on clock app — 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT6pF2FuR/

there’s some great discussion happening in the comments section after digging deeper into the documents that are publicly available for this case 🫶🏻

[deankelly87]

Posted: 8/28/25 at 12:45pm

Having worked with Ciara 10+ years ago (and having happily rarely thought about her since), I would have hoped that she'd grown as a human over the last decade, but it sounds like not much has changed. Back then, she was God's gift to the art form and couldn't be told otherwise, no matter how many Tonys or decades of work you had to your name. If she was truly wronged, I hope something good comes out of this debacle for her, but this sounds like a lather/ rinse/ repeat of bad behavior catching up with her to me.

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 12:45 PM

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 8/28/25 at 12:49pm

stageleftreport said: "For anyone who wants more info on what’s in the court documents + allegedly what was in the contract and what was said between the two parties, i made an explainer vid on clock app —

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT6pF2FuR/

there’s some great discussion happening in the comments section after digging deeper into the documents that are publiclyavailable for this case 🫶🏻"

Great work on this. I think most people who are saying “she’s just being difficult” will come around and see that Ciara is a great role model in how she’s standing up for herself here. 

Updated On: 8/28/25 at 12:49 PM